A recurring theme among Republicans running for president is that they’d like to see more discretion left to the states. For example, Rep. Michele Bachmann wants to abolish the federal Education Department in favor of local and state control, and Gov. Rick Perry wants to use the states as “laboratories of innovation” in health care. Today’s Question: Do you favor moving authority away from Washington and back to the states?

Related Questions

Yes. The federal government is just to large to determine what works and what doesn’t so they continue to fund poor performing programs that some idiot politician supported a decade ago.

One program for all 50 states makes no sense.

Experiment and try multiple approaches to see what programs work and which should not receive continued support.

Given the clueless community organizer that currently occupies the WH, I am not expecting much until 2012 when BO is loses re-election.

Jim G

No. This nation has already been down the road of states’ rights trumping the federal government. It ended in civil war. This is an extremist position. There is no benefit in revisiting this basic question that has been settled by Americans spilling each other’s blood.

Rich

Mrs..Bachmann claims state mandates are unconstitutional, but there’s no question that they are not.

The strong states’-rights stance requires coming to the defense of state-level mandates.

LizA

No. Play that tape through to the end.

david

It’s not like our state legislators is a group of brilliant individuals and operate like a well oiled machine…

Here in district 48 we are represented by the two biggest morons and creeps in the state. I have no faith in either of them to get anything done that isn’t either 1) shilling for centerpoint energy or 2) stalking women with a gun he met online.

Please people elect anyone but mike jungbauer or tom hackbarth, and while we’re at it bachmann NEEDS to go AWAY too!

Philip

Yes, but not because Bachmann and Perry say so. They’re a couple of dithering public individuals who really need to made private again.

Eric Grassi

No, the Fed isn’t too big.

A lot has changed in the last two, to three hundred years. Our economy is far too complex to let 50 different states battle one another while we lose to the rest of the world. Things like simple human rights should not vary from state to state. Each state should not have to spend money individually protecting our food and the environment, or deciding how well people need to be protected, if at all. Nor should each individual state need to figure out how to battle greed.

We are the United States of America. We are not Fifty Loosely Related States Who Just Happen to Mostly be on Contiguous Land.

Rich in Duluth

No, a strong Federal Government gives the people of this nation an advantage. We are not 50 little countries, loosely associated with each other.

It is less expensive and more consistent for us to provide infrastructure, national security, support for the poor and elderly, medical research, educational standards, environmental protection, or disaster relief through the Federal Government than for individual states to do these things.

The statements by presidential candidates that they want the Federal Government to be irrelevant is irresponsible.

kimMN

derp…

time for me to post something stupid and get paid my shinny new nickel…. how can I spin this around into some retarded anti-Obama retoric??? hmmmm.

derp…

Steve the Cynic

Should the Voting Rights Act be repealed? Should states be allowed ot reinstate Jim Crow laws?

GaryF

I like the idea of states having more control. They know their state and their people and can cater programs to fit their needs better than a one size fits all program.

When a state doesn’t offer good services or opportunity, people and business can leave for another state. Which if the federal government gives poor services and less opportunity, it’s a lot tougher to leave the country.

Competition is good. I know people on the left don’t like competition when it comes to government. They don’t like the idea of people moving with their feet when they don’t like more government/bad government forced upon them.

uptownZombie

Without a centralized approach to major pieces of our society (healthcare, education, the regulation of industry, …) we would have a couple of majorly impacting things occur, not to mention at precisely a time we don’t need them to:

1) we would end up with a lot of lackluster systems, and a few good ones, but it would take a couple of generations to actually figure that out.

2) Snake-oil businesses would pop from regulation system to regulation system before the previous one could catch on.

3) Employers (myself included) would only hire people from their local area, since that is the educational system that they know best.

4) Regulation definitions being different in every state would cause terms like “organic” to become confusing, and it would probably end up costing businesses more since they would have to understand each state’s specific laws. This of course would lead people like myself to certainly not buy food from outside of my state (since Organic could then have 50 different definitions).

Yes, a civil war of some sort would certainly ensue

Chuck

What a vague question this is? Do we want the States responsible for national defense? I don’t think so! Do we want the States responsible for air traffic control? I don’t think so! Do we want the States responsible for interstate commerce? Well, there’s a thought. Minnesota could tax all goods coming in from Wisconsin, Iowa, North and South Dakota. That would work well, wouldn’t it?

John

It doesn’t matter.

The failure of the system is in the lies of the news media, politicians, banksters, Federal Reserve, Israeli lobby, the never ending wars, homeland insecurity, lazy sheeple, etc.

C

The call for “states rights” has been, and is still being, used to justify inequality.

Also, state laws clearly have federal implications. For example, state laws which restrict voting influence who sits in congress and who is elected president.

GaryF

Chuck,

Better read your Constitution, nation defense is listed as something the federal government is supposed to do.

mindtron

We have advanced too far as a world to reduce the centralization of our government.

it may have made more sense when transportation and communication were much more limited and each state needed to be somewhat self-sufficient, but now that we are a global economy it does not make sense to lose a strong centralized government.

that being said, I do believe there are many possible areas where the Federal government can create goals and allow the states to decide how best reach those goals.

Cathi

Sometimes.

On Friday, October 7, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, along with the four US Attorneys from California, announced plans for a coordinated effort against operations in California that provide safe access to marijuana for those patients qualified to use it in accordance with state law.

These actions are incompatible with the Administration’s pledge to respect the decisions of voters and lawmakers in states that recognize the medical efficacy of marijuana. They will result in limiting patients’ regulated access to medicine and they will also cost California necessary jobs and needed tax revenue.

Legislating medical marijuana operations and prosecuting those who act in a manner that is inconsistent with California law and voters’ sentiment should be a responsibility left up to the individual states, not the federal government. It is time for this administration to fulfill the promises and assurances it gave to the medical marijuana community, not to reject them.

Larry M.

Not really, state and local officials are cheaper to buy or influence whether it be a direct purchase or just revenue gains for the area represented. Walmart actually sues council members as a group and individually those who want to block the building of the megastore in their area. Also local officials are more likely be effected by radical squeaky wheels who don’t like teaching science in the classroom and want to bring a philosophy into it, but don’t want to teach their kids philosophy because they might actually challenge their parents’ viewpoint. Or be influenced by those that don’t want to teach children and teens how their body works or that some people are different and shouldn’t be harassed because they are different.

uptownZombie

There’s a difference between how California and Colorado approached the challenge of dealing with marijuana in a medical field. Colorado completely regulated it to a point where there is very little chance that any marijuana produced for the medical community would find its way into the non-medical field. I am sure that same type of control was not executed in California.

That being said. Fed law supersedes state law, and it is the pergogative of the federal government to backstep on what it has said, if it so sees fit.

Fed Gov: We won’t step in if you keep your shit in order.

State Gov: Sounds good Fed. Thanks.

…

Fed Gov: You’re not keeping your shit in order, I’m coming in.

James

John, I could not have said it any better.

You even used Sheeple….lazy– none the less… Bonus!

∑

DTOM

Jason

It depends on where one lives, and which government body is doing a better job. And isn’t this already spelled out in the constitution?

I’m for any government structure that puts more power directly into individual’s hands. Also ones that are easier to manage and track, particularly with their spending. That suggests smaller, more local governments.

Cassie

There are so many things wrong about this idea, it boggles the mind. The far-reaching implications boggle the mind. That anyone could seriously entertain the possibility boggles the mind. Even our friends on the right should be able to figure it out. God bless the United States of America if these people succeed in their goals, because we’re going to need help desperately.

Milla

Washington doesn’t have ultimate authority, neither do the states. Strong recommendations are about all they can really do. (they also seem to delay the people’s good)

The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. – Carl Sagan

Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?

– Henry Ford

The criminalization of the world’s most useful and versatile plant, Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana/Ganja, was Unconstitutional … a crime against humanity and nature.

There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

GregX

Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is more uniform regulations for business costs and commerce including qualifications, licensing, reporting processes, weight-measurement standards, work-regulations, etc, etc. etc .. to foster easier expansion of competitive business … then you will want to have the federal government around. If you want protect local business and stymie competition from external parties – you regress to state and even county regualtion. Personally … I’d rather like being able to have my credentials transfer anywhere and , when I get there, have the work rules be essentailly the same – so I know my job the moment I start. But hey – If the states need to protect themselves from job seekers… just let me know.

Jim

What is it 1864? The whole “state’s rights” thing started the civil war. It is and always has been a conservative ploy to divide and conquer. As well as making it easier to but one state’s legislator at a time. In addition, it is a way of poor dumb states to push their backward agendas on their people without those liberal-elite states getting in their business.

Steve the Cynic

We don’t need states to be “laboratories of innovation” in health care. There are already about three dozen industrialized countries doing it better than we are. Why can’t we learn from them?

I believe that the original idea behind the United States was to create laboratories of democracy among the several states, while the federal government would only have power to write laws clearly described in Article 1 Section 8 or with new amendments in the US Constitution. If some law is successful in many of the states it may warrant a new amendment to the US Constitution, but let the states try it out first and measure the gains and losses before forcing that law upon the entire country. Afterall, it is much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country…some laws may be appropriate for one portion of the country and not others. The big problem with letting the federal government make the large portion of the laws is that when your side loses the other side will impose their view on you eventhough you and the majority of people in your state may not agree with that law; and vice versa when your side wins you will impose your view on many other people who do not agree.

Sue de Nim

Well, “Jefferson,” I for one am glad that civil rights were “imposed” on the South in 1964. Do you have a problem with that?

kimMN

Sue is right on that point, THANK GOD the Republicans fought back against the Democrats’ opposition to civil rights in the 1960’s.

But if we support Obama, then states’ rights shouldn’t exist. e.g., Fed’s sue Arizona for enforcing federal law, Feds dictate that all citizens have to buy a health care insurance product, Feds violate our laws and cause tax payers being excluded, and the move so we as tax payers are the last in line in the Solyndra’s bankruptcy.

The Feds ignored state’s rights and laws with using Operation Gun Runner/ with Fast and Furious operation to supply weapons to drug cartels. Their purpose in that fiasco causing two CBP agent deaths? Nothing more than to to show an excuse to support the corrupt UN. Hillary can go back to the UN to say that the USA supports the global Small Arms Treaty; the sale and recording to essentially restrict our Second Amendment Right.

Big governments with dictators as seen in the UN despise our 2nd Amendment. Every dictator responsible for killing their protesting citizens

(e.g., Egypt, Libya, Iran and Syria) want the UN to establish the abolishing of our 2nd. Amendment right. Those against the 2nd Amendment embrace the idea that any government can have complete control over their people unchecked….or just ask those who have lived in Lebanon, Cuba or Venezuela.

Obama has made a three year career of building the size of government by 42% and by diminishing state rights with also using his policies to circumvent Congress…..just look at the EPA run wild, un checked, to impose policies that are not vetted by Congress.

Gordon near Two Harbors

As I get older I see less and less reason to keep the country together as a single nation.

It’s almost as if the Left and Right are different peoples, needing separate countries.

That said, too much authority given to the states leads to 50 mini-counties. With many problems not heeding state boundaries (air and water pollution, etc.) the country needs a strong central government to solve/manage a multitude of issues.

kimMN

Do we need the Federal Dept of Ed when it costs tax payers a billion plus per year and since they were created, education graduation rates have fallen and kids are less prepared to work?

Do we need the EPA when we have laws on the books for states to monitor and enforce?

Do we need the Federal Dept of Energy when they don’t ensure energy independence but rather regulate our resources to be marginal?

Did the EPA and Energy Dept do well when we read that the Obama Green job initiatives from the stimulus bill were wasted?

How badly was it wasted? Is a bus driver in a “green bus” considered a Green job created? Is a professor job now a Green job created because they teach Green economics?Yes, they use that excuse to bolster the number of so called Green jobs created..amazing but true ( read the recent Labor Secretary comments before Congress) Much of this stimulus money for Green loans did not build American jobs, it went to companies owned by overseas groups and to Obama campaign donors. That doesn’t help.

Here is more waste that citizens should know before they re-elect the Chicago style president; Congressional Oversight data:

The Energy Dept. on last June 18 gave Solar Trust, an American subsidiary of Germany’s Solar Millennium, a $2.1 billion loan guarantee for a Blythe, Calif., solar-power facility. Last June, Energy handed Spain’s Abengoa Solar a $1.2 billion guarantee for its Mojave (California) Solar Project and backstopped $1.45 billion last December for Abengoa’s Gila Bend, Arizona outpost.

On Sept. 28, the Energy Dept approved a $737 million loan guarantee for Nevada’s SolarReserve Project. It promises 600 construction jobs at $1.23 million each and 45 permanent jobs at $16.4 million per position. Energy also guaranteed $337 million for Sempra Energy’s Mesquite Solar Project in Arizona. Its 300 construction jobs cost $1.12 million each, while its seven permanent positions equal $48.1 million per job created.

In Seattle, an Energy grant provided $20 million to weatherize homes. Sixteen months later, this outlay has generated 14 administrative jobs at $1.42 million apiece. How many homes have been retrofitted? Three.

So, more big Federal government has been good for us? And we wonder HOW did Obama raise or national debt from 8 trillion to 15 plus trillion in just 2 years? How did he spend more in two years han alllll the other Presidents combined while showing no job gains; unemployment above 9% with some states at over 15% well??? In the private sector, a CEO with that kind of inefficient losing record would be run out of town.

Steve the Cynic

KimMN, where did you learn your history? It’s obvious you’re too young to remember the civil rights era, because if you were, you’d know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with strong bipartisan support. Opposition was regional, not partisan, coming mainly from southerners, who were predominantly Democrats as a legacy of the Civil War, but even the few southern Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it. And it was the Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, who signed it into law. Obviously, Kim, the truth is irrelevant to you.

Sue de Nim – [Well, “Jefferson,” I for one am glad that civil rights were “imposed” on the South in 1964. Do you have a problem with that?] *** Actually I believe we should have created a new constitutional amendment to send an even stronger message to all the states (many states in the north had biased laws against certain races as well). But I would be sure that the civil rights would only apply to government, government services and government jobs (race should not be given preference or punishment in government at all). Forcing civil rights upon private the private sector infringes upon the freedom of association right of those businesses and individuals. The best thing to do is to go to the media and out the businesses/individuals who are racially motivated, those individuals and businesses would lose the vast majority of their business. The constitutional amdendments that give some power for the civil rights law upon government are the 15th and 24th amendments…forcing civil rights on private businesses does not appear to be a power granted to the federal government…unless someone else can find that amendment for me.

Lance

Well, yeah. Has anybody read the constitution lately? Amendment X (that would be the one at the end of The Bill of Rights) – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.”

We have shifted so far away from the original intent of the constitution that the way back will have to be gradual, but it’s the course we must take.

Sue de Nim

@”Jefferson”

You wrote, “Forcing civil rights upon private the private sector infringes upon the freedom of association right of those businesses and individuals.” Are you saying it should be legal for help-wanted ads to say, “Blacks need not apply”? For shops to have signs saying “Whites only”? I don’t think so.

*

@steve the cynic:

Actually if you check the Congressional record for the voting and the names of who proposed the first bill for civil rights was by the Republicans and there were many Dems who opposed it.

Republicans in the 87th Congress under the leadership of Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Il.), is the one who drafted an extensive Civil Rights Bill. They didn’t have the votes to pass the bill and there were some in the Republican Party, such as Sen. Karl Mundt (R-SD), who opposed it. The history books you may have grown up with, had re-wrote history by ignoring those facts.

Back to the question of today: The Feds have took more power away from states than at any time since FDR or maybe even Wilson. Obama’s policies seem right our of the FDR play book.

Jim Shapiro

One of the most blatant and divisive issues regarding state’s rights is around education.

Should Kansas be permitted to mandate the teaching of “Intelligent Design”? Not if we want the children of Kansas to be intelligent, no.

Should California to be able to mandate the teaching of ” The Contributions of Homosexuals Throughout History”? No, really. I looked it up.

How ’bout mandating the teaching of The Failed Wars of Folly if you want to benefit children with the knowledge of history.

The Federal government should step in to overrule absurd decisions made by a state, be it coming from the right or the left.

kimMN

Everything about kimMN is inappropriate. If you would stop engaging it Steve then maybe it would go away. It’s obviously got a political agenda that its getting paid for. No one could be as asinine as this person is, could they?

Sue de Nim – [You wrote, “Forcing civil rights upon private the private sector infringes upon the freedom of association right of those businesses and individuals.” Are you saying it should be legal for help-wanted ads to say, “Blacks need not apply”? For shops to have signs saying “Whites only”? I don’t think so. ] *** Actually I asked for a power granted in the US Constitution that would allow the federal government force a civil rights law upon a private business. Again you are basing federal law on your own personal beliefs rather than the US Constitution, that’s how we end up with laws like Obamacare. We have the 1st Amendment which allows freedom of speech and association, you may not always like the speech or association but they are rights under the law and in the US Constitution. I don’t agree with your examples and I think businesses that use those tactics should go out of business but I’m not ready to give the federal government power to shut down businesses for simply exercising their right of freedom of assembly. Also, I would support a new amendment to stop the federal government (and state governments) from ever using race, sex, religion or sexual preference as a reason to discriminate.

Bear

No matter left or right, the 1:19 and 1:21 post insult all readers of this blog. The mod’s should remove the post and ban this irrersponsble and insensitive person from further posts. Grow up!

KIKI

How coheasive do we want the education of our nation’s children to be? That’s the question. Do we want entire states to be evacuated like inner-city neighborhoods because they have a poor school system? Do we want an even greater divide between the haves and the have nots in education for those who can’t move? I see all of these issues being of great concern if we don’t have some sort of “guiding principals” that apply to all the states. Whether that means our national government guides us or if we are able to somehow find a way for all states to independently assure that its children are educated to similar standards it doesn’t matter, but there needs to be some guiding principals to make sure every child has the opportunity for a good education.

ben

Rarely do I notice state lines and even less county and city lines.

Many people are don’t even know what county they live or work in and townships even less.

If we just had federal offices there would be a lot less bureaucrats for our taxes support.

If we had the states really compete, we’d have a race to the bottom for services and taxes and we would all lose.

The opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was regional, not partisan. The only reason it looked like Republicans were more in favor of it than Democrats were was the historical accident of Democratic Party dominance in the Old South.

Steve the Cynic

To the impersonator of KimMN,

On the contrary. If no one calls the bullshit bullshit, eventually it gains traction. KimMN’s opinions are almost complete bullshit, but it’s important to distinguish between the opinion and the opinionator. I love ridiculing ridiculous opinions (as you may have noticed), but the 1:19 and 1:21 posts today went way to far in ridiculing a person. The author of those posts should be ashamed.

Steve the Cynic

“We have shifted so far away from the original intent of the constitution that the way back will have to be gradual, but it’s the course we must take.”

Why must we. Lance? It’s not like the Constitution is Holy Writ. Yes, it’s the supreme law of the land, but it’s not immutable. And whether the “original intent” is an absolute standard for interpreting it is a matter that intelligent, well-intentioned people have honest disagreements about.

Sue de Nim

@”Jefferson”

Freedom of association is enshrined in the constitution, but freedom of commerce is not. If government doesn’t have authority to establish laws regarding just and fair business practices, what is government for?

CF

@ STC

Why must we… It’s not like the Constitution is Holy Writ… but it’s not immutable.

That kind of thinking is the whole reason we (this country) is in the state that it is. Without a founding document, there is no order. Have you ever taken out a loan or mortgage, signed a contract, accepted a job offer or rented an apartment without an “immutable document”?

Without the immutable documents, our society would be in chaos. Of course that’s what liberals want.

Now granted, the Constitution is not Holy like the Bible, but it is the the founding contract of the nation. And may I dare say the concepts of the Constitution are based on Biblical principles of liberty and justice.

Naturally, Steve, you and your liberal kind fear both the Constitution and the Bible because you fear truth. You think that without truth you are free. I guess you haven’t been the The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, lately have you?

@ Sue D Nim

Please quote the articles in the Constitution that outlaws commerce.

Steve the Cynic

CF, the constitution has been amended 27 times. How can you deny that it’s mutable?

And regarding this comment of yours (“Naturally, Steve, you and your liberal kind fear both the Constitution and the Bible because you fear truth. You think that without truth you are free.”) it seems awfully arrogant of you to assume you know my state of mind better than I do. I would suggest that it’s fear that motivates folks who refuse to consider the possibility that previous generations’ interpretations of things like the Bible and the Constitution have been inadequate. Perhaps it’s another example of projection– imagining that others have issues that are really one’s own?

And, yet again, as I have so many times before, I reject the label of “liberal” for myself. I’m liberal only by comparison with the extreme right wing that’s been dominating American political discourse lately.

Sue de Nim

@CF

You don’t read very carefully before you jump to conclusions, do you? Else why would you write such a silly thing as “Please quote the articles in the Constitution that outlaws commerce,” when I asserted that the Constiitution doesn’t guarantee “freedom of commerce”? Show me where the it says the government is prohibited from regulating commerce!

Steve the Cynic – [CF, the constitution has been amended 27 times. How can you deny that it’s mutable?] *** That’s the beauty of the US Constitution, it actually allows for change. It not only came with instructions on how to change that document and create new amendments it came with 10 amendments for prime examples of what these amendments should look like. To change such a document does require a lot of agreement and I think that’s great because if we are going to change the foundation of our legal system we better have a super majority backing the law. I would say that the only major mistake with amendments was corrected after prohibition was repealed; even then it showed you can correct mistakes made with the amendment system.

Sue de Nim – [Show me where the it says the government is prohibited from regulating commerce!] *** Clearly Article 1 Section 8 allows for the federal government to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the states but commerce within a single state does not fall within the federal government’s power. Also, the 9th Amendment states that the federal government may not infringe upon any other rights (that includes freedom of association). Regulations were meant to pertain to safety and fair business practices (such as fraud or swindle), making someone feel bad or isolating certain groups does not fall under that umbrella (yes I understand we all abhor those business practices). I wish we had just created a Civil Rights Amendment for government in general; using race, religion or sexual preference as a determining factor in any government program is plain wrong just like it’s plain wrong for the federal government to set up a quota system on small businesses that reside completely within a single state.

Sue de Nim

@”Jefferson”

If you think civil rights law is merely about preventing people from making others “feel bad,” you have no understanding of the real issue. If treating people fairly regardless of things like skin color or ancestry or gender isn’t a matter of “fair business practices,” I don’t know what is. The Jim Crow laws were not merely demeaning to African Americans, they were oppressive. If you can’t find room in the Constitution for the federal government to forbid oppression, you are a heartless boor, and you deny the legacy of the man you’ve named your online persona after.

Sue de Nim – [If you think civil rights law is merely about preventing people from making others “feel bad,” you have no understanding of the real issue. If treating people fairly regardless of things like skin color or ancestry or gender isn’t a matter of “fair business practices,” I don’t know what is. The Jim Crow laws were not merely demeaning to African Americans, they were oppressive. If you can’t find room in the Constitution for the federal government to forbid oppression, you are a heartless boor, and you deny the legacy of the man you’ve named your online persona after.] *** I feel like you don’t even read what I am writing. Yes I agree 100% Jim Crow Laws (or any law) that isolate and demean any race are illegal and the US Constitution allows laws to prevent governments from using racial discrimination. My point is about private businesses or associations, using your logic you could never have an NAACP or Latino Business Group or any other ethnically motivated group without a quota to require them to include other groups. Imagine if there was a business that refused to serve whites (or any other ethnic group), they would be cruisified in the media as they should be and they would be out of business within weeks without the federal government getting involved. The federal government is not always the solution and the more we depend on the federal government the less flexability and freedoms we have; like I said in my first comment we would end up with a very divisive system very much like the situation we are in now. Think about it, why are presidential elections such a big deal today? Because when the other side wins they impose their viewpoint upon you, which why we should avoid federal power when ever we can…let government be smaller and states can make overreaching laws and if you don’t like those laws you can just move to another state.

Sue de Nim

@”Jefferson”

And I feel like you’re not reading what I’m writing. You are construing the “freedom of association” clause in the Constitution as guaranteeing a right for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. I simply reject that interpretation, and so do the vast majority of Americans. And since the Supreme Court has not seen fit to overturn those provisions of federal law, apparently they reject that interpretation, too.

You are correct that a business that refused to serve any particular race or ethnic group would be excoriated in the media. Today. But not in the ’60s in the Old South. Federal civil rights laws have played an important role in reducing the amount of oppression women and minorities experience in America today. Those states would not have done it on their own. It took federal authority, and it was appropriate for the federal government to do.

It is appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!